When I was a junior high school student in Illinois, I was once told by
district employees that if a school funding referendum did not pass, some of my
favorite teachers would lose their jobs. As the son of the school board
president, I was well aware of the issue, but I can imagine that this energized
several of my classmates to get their parents out to vote — and vote a
particular way. It's certainly important for voters to be accurately and
soberly informed regarding the likely implications of the school budget going
up or down, but is it just as acceptable for the school to advocate one side or
the other of this decision?

StayEngaged

Receive our weekly emails!

email address

Since coming to Michigan, I've noticed that the
official Web pages of many public school districts have implemented a policy that
looks a lot like using the taxpayers' dime to advocate for more of the
taxpayers' dimes. In other words, they go beyond providing "just the facts"
about what will happen if the budget goes up or down and instead openly agitate
for higher spending.

Some examples:

Sault Area Public School District has a link on its Web site that reads,
"Contact Your Legislators." It takes you to a page that coaches letter-writers
to employ the following "key points":

The State of Michigan's investment in our children is critical;

You value your local public schools;

You know that strong public schools are a key to economic development;

Funding our public schools should be their top priority;

You want the state to provide adequate and equitable funding for all
public school students;

You want to retain the high quality educational programs provided for
your children.

Mesick Consolidated Schools has a "Message from the Superintendent." This
links to a letter that outlines the positions against cutting state aid, for
using stimulus funds "equitably" for schools and even for a reduction in the
number of charter public schools by "reviewing their performance and revoking
charters for those that are failing our students."

While holding public schools accountable and closing the ones that don't
measure up is a noble objective, it is a telling omission that Mesick doesn't
advocate also closing the conventional school districts that fail to meet
standards. For example, the National Assessment for Educational Progress
recently released results showing that Detroit Public Schools students scored
the worst in the nation on a national test. The executive of the NAEP, Michael
Casserly said, "[The test scores] are barely above what one would expect simply
by chance, as if the kids simply guessed at the answers."

So, is Mesick more concerned about the competition from charters, rather
than the quality of all schools?

Mesick's issue advocacy also extends to calling for a rollback of term
limits and giving all lawmakers 12 years in office. This might seem unrelated
to school issues, so the Web site connects the dots: "Just when our elected officials understand
the issues ... they are effectively removed from office by term limits."

What an interesting perspective to appear on a Web page otherwise
dedicated to pleading with politicians to behave in the best interests of the
school district. The reader might conclude that this kind of overt spending
advocacy by public school districts has been going on for a long time and that
Michigan's term limit amendment has been a major impediment to the district
defeating the other side of the debate.

Grand Rapids Public Schools, Michigan's third-largest district, also
advocates for more spending. On its homepage, the district has links to the
following:

A letter from the superintendent talking about their spending reductions.
It concludes: "Parents, staff, GRPS
supporters and concerned citizens are encouraged to contact their state
lawmakers and urge them to oppose the proposed cuts in the School Aid budget."

A brochure titled "Contact Your Legislators," with information outlining
contact information. This is put out by a group called "Advocates for Grand
Rapids Public Schools."

A list of talking points outlining what people should say to their
legislators.

This list of talking points goes through a lot of issues but mostly
centers on opposing any budget cuts (it lists some specifically) and
encouraging more school funding. It also "SUPPORT[S] administrative and
legislative program changes that will provide additional resources (revenue) to
our classrooms" and seeks a "possible expansion of our sales tax to include a
tax on luxury service purchases."

Outside of these particularly bold districts, there are a few others that
encourage residents to contact legislators for more funding. Conversely, we
have not located a single district Web site that provides suggested talking
points for taxpayers who wish to tell their lawmakers that school funding is
just fine where it is — or maybe could be trimmed since times are tough
for Michigan taxpayers as well. Anyone with that heretical opinion has to think
for themselves without assistance from a taxpayer-financed Web site.

Some districts may compare their "more money" advocacy to that of a
business advocating for positions that benefit them. However, there are major
differences. Businesses often use their own money to lobby for keeping more of
their own money. These public school districts are using your money to argue
for taking more of your money.

Like all public entities, a school has the sole purpose of providing a
service — in this case, the best education that can be had for the money
made available. We don't allow public institutions to rally on behalf of
candidates with our tax dollars, and we shouldn't allow them to take stands on
political issues with them either.

(Editor's Note: For more information on public entities using tax dollars to
agitate for more tax dollars, please see www.mackinac.org/8194.)

Jarrett Skorup is the
research associate for online engagement for Michigan Capitol Confidential. He
may be reached at skorup@mackinac.org.

Obamacare repeal-and-replace is underway, and regardless of whether it passes or fails big, changes are coming for Michigan’s medical services and insurance industry, and the state’s social welfare system, especially Medicaid.

RelatedSites

Would you like to see more information like this? Learn how you can help the Mackinac Center provide incisive, accurate and timely analysis of critical policy issues.